BEIRUT: A CITY, FIVE DIOCESES AND AN APOSTOLIC VICARIATE
Vatican City, 13 September 2012 (VIS) - Tomorrow Benedict XVI is due to
begin his twenty-fourth apostolic trip abroad, taking him to Lebanon where, in
the country's capital city of Beirut on Sunday, he is due to sign the
Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of the Special Assembly for the Middle East
of the Synod of Bishops, which took place in the Vatican in October 2010.
The
name of Beirut is thought to be Canaanite in origin (bis'rot, the plural of bir
meaning a well, a reference to the water tables under the city). The city is
mentioned in Egyptian chronicles of the second millennium BC and became famous
for the activities of Phonecian sailors and merchants. In the year 14 BC it
obtained the status of Roman colony and took the name of Julia Augusta Felix
Berytus. Destroyed by an earthquake and tidal wave in 551 AD, the city was in
ruins when the Muslims arrived in 635. It was conquered by the Crusaders in 1110
and, following their definitive expulsion in 1229, passed under the control of
the Mameluks, becoming an important regional port for the spice trade with the
Italian Maritime Republics of Venice and Genoa.
The city was occupied by the
Ottomans in 1516 and in subsequent centuries its population grew steadily due to
its commercial importance. Following the massacres in Mount Lebanon in 1860 the
city witnessed a massive influx of Christian refugees. Pacification, brought
about by the Great Powers, was followed by the arrival of Protestant
missionaries (from Great Britain, the United States and Germany) and Catholic
missionaries (above all, from France). The American Protestants founded the
American University of Beirut in 1866, while the Jesuits established the
Universite Saint-Joseph in 1881. Thanks to the development of printing in
Arabic, English and French, Beirut became a hub for journalism and publishing in
the Arab world.
At the end of World War I, with the fall of the Ottoman
Empire, Lebanon fell under the French mandate. It gained independence in 1943
and, thanks to a prevailing atmosphere of intellectual openness and economic
liberalism, became a regional centre for trade, business, finance and tourism,
gaining the sobriquet of the "Switzerland of the Middle East". The expulsion of
the Palestine Liberation Organisation from Jordan in 1970 was a key moment in
the country's history, as the organisation's political and military centre moved
to Lebanon where it became a catalyst for the tensions between the various
religious communities. The Civil War between 1975 and 1991 wreaked widespread
destruction on the economy and infrastructures.
The scale of the destruction
meant that the centre of the city had to be almost completely rebuilt. In the
absence of an official census, it is estimated that the inhabitants of "Greater
Beirut" currently number around 1.5 million, slightly less than half the
population of the entire country.
Beirut has five dioceses: Beirut of the
Maronites (episcopal see since 1577), an archieparchy with some 232,000 faithful
under the care of Archbishop Paul Youssef Matar. Beirut of the Greek-Melkites
(dating from the fourth century) and Jbeil of the Greek-Melkites (suburbicarian
1881), a metropolitan see with 200,000 faithful under Archbishop Cyril Salim
Bustros. Beirut of the Armenians (1928-1929), metropolitan see and patriarchal
eparchy of Cilicia of the Armenians, serving 12,000 faithful and led by His
Beatitude Nerses Bedros XIX Tarmouni, patriarch of Cilicia of the Armenians.
Beirut of the Chaldeans (1957) with 19,000 faithful under Bishop Michel
Kassarji. Beirut of the Syrians (1817), eparchy of the patriarchal church of
Antioch of the Syrians with 14.500 faithful under the care of His Beatitude
Ignace Youssif III Younan, patriarch of Antioch of the Syrians.
The city also
has one apostolic vicariate, that of Beirut of the Latins which has 10,000
faithful and the vicar of which is Archbishop Paul Dahdah
O.C.D.

VERITAS PRESS RELEASE:

LAST OUNCE OF COURAGE

'Last Ounce of Courage' is an
intergenerational story about family, free expression, and taking a stand for
cherished beliefs. A family is struck by tragedy when a young man is lost in
combat overseas, leaving behind a wife and young son. Years later, the fallen soldier's father, Bob
Revere, serves as mayor of a small town where powerful Washington interests seek
to stamp out religious expression. The soldier's son, now a young man, inspires
his grandfather to take a stand for the ideals and traditional values that our
heroes in uniform sacrifice everything to protect. In honor of his son, Revere
embarks on a personal mission to reignite the latent patriotism and faith of his
fellow citizens and reassert the cherished rights guaranteed to all
Americans.

OVERVIEWGenre: Family
Entertainment
Language: English/Subtitles
Country of Origin:
USA
Production Status: Coming to theaters in wide release September 14,
2012.
Film Website: www.lastouncethemovie.com

Genres: DramaPRODUCTION TEAMDirectors: Darrel Campbell & Kevin
McAfeeProducer: Kevin McAfeeWriter: Darrel CampbellStory: Richard
and Gina HeadrickExecutive Producers: Rodney Stone, Richard Headrick, Gina
Headrick, Gen Fukunaga, Cindy Fukunaga, Doug Pethoud, Norman A. Miles, Denise
Castelli, Lynn DeanMusic Producer: Michael OmartianMusic: Ronald
OwenMusic Supervisor: Barry LandisSound Design: John
ChalfantSYNOPSISBob Revere is a small town Mayor and
combat decorated veteran. He faces a root of bitterness from his past filled
with heartbreaking loss. His grandson comes back into his life after many years
to ask the most important question, “What are we doing with our life to make a
difference?” Bob had grown apathetic along with an entire town. Now with the
help of children, a group of people all band together to inspire hope, take back
the freedoms that are being lost and take a stand for truth.SHARED FROM
VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT

Agenzia Fides REPORT - "We need new courage
in the face of difficulties. Gazing into the distance, dialogue in the language
made up of sympathy, friendship and compassion has to be created. This common
language allows us to talk, seeing the beauty of differences and the value of
equality. Living together in peace is God's will. Hatred, division, violence,
massacres and genocide, do not come from God." This is an excerpt of the Peace
Appeal which concluded the meeting "Living Together is the Future" organized by
the St. Egidio Community in the Bosnian capital from 9 to 11
September.
Representatives of different religions came together in this land,
which still bears the wounds of the last war fought in Europe: the painful
conflict reminds everyone "how the war is a great evil and leaves a poisoned
legacy. One should avoid with all one’s might to slip into terrible spiral of
hatred, violence and war " is what is written in the Appeal. Although in our
time "more and more different people get closer geographically.... It must be
done spiritually despite the difference of religions. We are different. But our
unanimous belief is this: to live together among different people is possible
anywhere in the world, it is very fruitful. It is possible in Sarajevo and
elsewhere. We must prepare the future responsibly. Religions have a great
responsibility in this sense. "
In times of economic crisis such as the
present, "it is tempting to give up, even to blame other people for their
problems, those of the past or present. So people become for others a foreigner
or enemy. Dangerous cultures of resentment, hatred, fear develop ... Religions
have a great task: they speak of God to the human heart and free man from
hatred, prejudice, fear, and opens him to love. It changes a man and a woman
from the inside. Religions can teach every man and woman and the people the art
of living together through dialogue, mutual respect, respect for freedom and
difference. They can thus create a more humane world. Because we are all the
same and all different." (SL) (Agenzia Fides 12/09/2012)

Bereaved mothers and fathers hurt by the tragedy of abortion
and the loss of their unborn child will be among those who will attend Sydney's
first-ever Memorial Mass for the Unborn to be celebrated by the Archbishop of
Sydney, Cardinal George Pell at St Mary's Cathedral tomorrow night.
An
initiative of Cardinal Pell's, the idea for an annual Sydney Memorial Mass for
the Unborn was inspired by Los Angeles' Requiem Mass for the Unborn which was
introduced by Cardinal Roger Mahony in 2003.

In January this year
Cardinal Pell was invited to concelebrate Los Angeles' Requiem Mass for the
Unborn with the Archbishop of Los Angeles, the Most Rev Jose Gomez.
Participating in the solemn remembrance of the unborn children lost to abortion,
Cardinal Pell recognised the need for a similar Memorial Mass for the Unborn in
Sydney.

Abortion can trigger longterm trauma and
distress for a woman

Each day 82 unborn children lose their lives to
abortion across NSW. The Mass tomorrow evening will provide a beautiful and
consoling occasion to unite the Catholic community in remembrance and prayer for
these children as well as reaching out to support and pray for the mothers and
fathers who grieve their loss.

"During the Mass 82 candles will be lit to
commemorate the children lost each day to abortion in NSW, and will express the
Church's love and compassion for all those hurt by abortion," says Mary Joseph,
Project Officer with the Archdiocese of Sydney's Life, Marriage and Family
Centre which has helped organise this very special Mass.

Newborn and unborn babies are aware and respond
to music, voices and even their own name

Among attendees at the Mass
will be staff and students from Catholic schools and universities, members of
parishes across the Archdiocese and representatives from Catholic agencies such
as CatholicCare, the Catholic Education Office, Pregnancy Help Australia, the
Catholic Women's League, the Maronite community, pro-life groups such as Family
Life International, Right to Life Australia and NSW Right to Life.
Representatives from Rachel's Vineyard, a healing ministry of the Catholic
Church for women hurt by abortion will also be present.
While abortion can
trigger long term emotional distress among mothers, what is often forgotten is
the toll taken on fathers of unborn children whose lives were terminated.

Each day in NSW 82 unborn children lose their
lives to abortion

"A recent Los Angeles Times survey of 3600 men
found that 66% or two third reported feelings of guilt and anxiety after their
involvement in an abortion," Mary reports. "Other research indicates men can
experience post-traumatic stress, depression, sexual dysfunction and anger post
abortion as more and more fathers share testimonies on how deeply they regret
their involvement and the ongoing grief they feel for the loss of their
child."
As with many women, men also find the birth of their first child and
the deep joy they feel at becoming a parent can trigger grief for the child they
never had a chance to know or love.
But it is not only mothers and fathers of
children lost to abortion who suffer, Mary says but grandparents and siblings
who have also lost the chance of ever knowing their unborn grandchild or
sibling.

Prayers will echo the words of Blessed John Paul II in
Evangelium Vitae that those touched by abortion may come to understand what has
happened and know they can turn to their heavenly Father and his infinite mercy
with the sure hope entrust their child to him.

The birth of a first born can trigger grief and
distress over involvement in abortion for men as well as women

Those
babies lost for medical or sometimes inexplicable reasons prior to birth and
those still born will also be remembered during the Mass.
The Mass will also
offer prayers for those in public office and those entrusted with the
responsibility of the law and healthcare in NSW that they will recognise the
truth that the unborn child belongs to the human family and that their life must
be protected and valued.
Prayer cards distributed at the Mass will also
provide contact details for pregnancy counselling and support and post-abortion
healing.
All are welcome at this historic Memorial Mass for the Unborn to be
held at St Mary's Cathedral at 7.30 pm, Friday 14 September.

ASIA NEWS REPORT: by
Paul DakikiFor the head of the Maronite
Church, Benedict XVI comes as a witness of peace in the Middle East, demanding
governments, interested parties and mercenaries to stop buying and using
weapons. Together, Christians and Muslims can build for a real Arab Spring. The
movie that denigrates Muhammad is an insult to all religions. It is unclear who
the director and producer are.

Bkerke
(AsiaNews) - During his visit to Lebanon, Benedict XVI will c all for peace in
Syria and an end to arms sales to the region, said Patriarch Bechara Rai, at a
press conference this morning. The head of the Maronite Church said the
anti-Islam movie that caused demonstrations, acts of violence and deaths in
Libya, was "shameful". For him, "this movie offends everybody."

The
pope's visit on 14-16 September is designed "to stop the spiral of violence and
hatred," the patriarch explained, and "ask arms merchants to stop selling to
either group."

Tensions in Syria developed as part of the Arab Spring but
turned into an all-out civil war that has left tens of thousands of
dead.

Together with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Western governments are
providing rebels with money and weapons. Russia, China and Iran back Bashar
al-Assad and his regime.

"The war is not fought in the name of Islam or
Christianity, but on behalf of states by interested parties, mercenaries," Rai
said.

"Christians and Muslims must come together around some values to
build a real Arab Spring," he said.

The pope is coming to Lebanon to
sign and promote the Apostolic Exhortation he wrote following the Synod of the
Middle East held in Rome in October 2010 that discussed some aspects and values
found in the movements that are changing the Arab world.

"The pope's
visit is a plea for peace in the Middle East, the separation of state and
religion, acceptance of others and diversity within unity," the patriarch
added.

Speaking about the anti-Islam movie 'Innocence of Muslims,'
produced by an American Jew, the patriarch said that "the movie is offensive
towards Muslims, but towards all religions."

"The United Nations and the
international community must take a strong stance against such insults," he
added.

The low quality movie appears to have been made to offend Muslims.
According to the actors who play in it, the plot had nothing to do with
Muhammad. The original dialogue was instead changed.

Shown only once in
Hollywood, it depicts Muhammad as homosexual, a violent man, a paedophile in
favour of child abuse.

The identity of the movie's director and producer
is still unclear. It is supposed to be a certain Sam Becile, but in Los Angeles,
that is a common alias.

CISA NEWS REPORT: NAIROBI, September
11, 2012 (CISA) -Two National Christian bodies have today, September 11
urged the Government to ensure that security is beefed up in the country’s Tana
River District, where on Sunday, September 10, 38 people including nine
policemen were killed.
Local media here described the killing as a result of
revenge attack from a local community that had been attacked by another one in
the locality.
The Sunday, September 10 attack brought to 111 the number of
people, who have so far died following the two attacks between the Pokomo and
Orma communities.
In their joint statement, the National Council of Churches
of Kenya (NCCK) and the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya (EAK) said, “As part of
the Christian community in Kenya, we are greatly perturbed by the developing
scenario in which Kenyans are being killed and property and livestock destroyed
with blatant impunity,”
“Our Grand Coalition government is the only
government we have entrusted with both the safeguarding of the constitution and
the people of Kenya regardless of their tribe, clan, race, religion and social
or economic status,” stressed the Church statement, entitled: Government, Be
Government and signed jointly by NCCK General Secretary, Rev Canon Peter Karanja
and EAK General Secretary, Rev Dr Willy Mutiso.
“As we have said before, it
is not enough for government to issue hard hitting statements after the damage
is done,” emphasized the two Christian bodies.
Kenyans want to see the
Executive arm of the government taking all actions necessary to pre-empt, punish
and restrain all forces of evil from causing havoc and tragedy and destroying
our socio-political fabric, stressed the NCCK/EAK statement.
“It is indeed
incomprehensible to us that more than a hundred Kenyans have been killed in Tana
River County over the last three weeks yet the government seems either incapable
of or un-committed to restoring sanity,” the NCCK/EAK statement further
said.
As the custodian of security and safety of Kenyans, we call upon the
government to ensure that it provided humanitarian relief to all the affected
community members regardless of their ethnic backgrounds, and deploy adequate
and well equipped security agents on the ground to protect all the community
members without discrimination.
The two Christian bodies also called on the
Government to arrest and prosecute the masterminds of the violence from both
sides to ensure that no further mobilization of communities for violence takes
place and also facilitate intra and inter-community mediation with a view to
correcting erroneous community narratives that presume anyone can further their
interests by harming and destroying their perceived enemies.
The Christian
bodies also called on the Government to address the underlying causes of the
violence, top among these being the boundary between Tana River and Garissa
Counties, and sort out the water problem at the heart of the crisis by assuring
pastoralists of access to the river for their livestock.
“We remind the
President and Prime Minister that they have a sworn duty to ensure the security
of all Kenyans and the residents of Tana River should neither be allowed to
butcher one another nor remain vulnerable to criminal activities as they wait
for government action and protection,” they said.
If the conflict is left to
fester, it will create a bad model to other regions and locations in the country
where there are underlying and unresolved issues that taking the law into one’s
own hands and unleashing violence and terror on one’s protagonists is a viable
option, reminded the statement.
It added that as a the country is headed to
the general elections next year, allowing lawlessness to reign in any part of
Kenya is to take a great risk of violence around the elections period.
“On
their part, we urge all the residents of Tana River County to cease the violence
and to remember the words recorded in Genesis 9: 6: “Whoever sheds the blood of
man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.
Violence will only breed more violence. It is not a solution to the problems you
have”, observed the NCCK/EAK statement.
Meanwhile the International Center
for Policy and Conflict (ICPC) has expresses grave concern on the deteriorating
security situation in Tana River. It has said this is a primary duty and
responsibility of the government to protect citizens and that this
responsibility entails the prevention of occurrence of crimes, including their
incitement, through appropriate and necessary means.
“It is worrisome that
the country is facing a surge of violence and lawlessness that has shattered the
lives of thousands of Kenya in Tana River and neighboring areas just a few
months to the momentous and definitive general elections. There is absolutely no
convincing action that government of Kenya has taken to deter further
bloodletting.
“We want to remind government of Kenya that whenever a state is
unable to protect the human rights of its citizens, or indeed are actively
involved in violating those rights on a significant scale, then the world
community’ has a responsibility to step in and ensure that these rights are
protected,” said Ndung’u Wainaina Executive Director, ICPC.
SHARED FROM CISA
NEWS

Doctor of the Church, born at Antioch, c. 347; died at Commana
in Pontus, 14 September, 407.John -- whose surname "Chrysostom" occurs for
the first time in the "Constitution" of Pope Vigilius (cf. P.L., LX, 217) in the
year 553 -- is generally considered the most prominent doctor of the Greek
Church and the greatest preacher ever heard in a Christian pulpit. His natural
gifts, as well as exterior circumstances, helped him to become what he
was.LifeBoyhoodAt the time of Chrysostom's birth, Antioch was the second
city of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire. During the whole of the fourth
century religious struggles had troubled the empire and had found their echo at
Antioch. Pagans, Manichaeans, Gnostics, Arians, Apollinarians, Jews, made their
proselytes at Antioch, and the Catholics were themselves separated by the schism
between the bishops Meletius and Paulinus. Thus Chrysostom's youth fell in
troubled times. His father, Secundus, was an officer of high rank in the Syrian
army. On his death soon after the birth of John, Anthusa, his wife, only twenty
years of age, took the sole charge of her two children, John and an elder
sister. Fortunately she was a woman of intelligence and character. She not only
instructed her son in piety, but also sent him to the best schools of Antioch,
though with regard to morals and religion many objections could be urged against
them. Beside the lectures of Andragatius, a philosopher not otherwise known,
Chrysostom followed also those of Libanius, at once the most famous orator of
that period and the most tenacious adherent of the declining paganism of Rome.
As we may see from the later writings of Chrysostom, he attained then
considerable Greek scholarship and classical culture, which he by no means
disowned in his later days. His alleged hostility to classical learning is in
reality but a misunderstanding ofcertain passages in which he defends the
philosophia of Christianity against the myths of the heathen gods, of which the
chief defenders in his time were the representatives and teachers of the sophia
ellenike (see A. Naegele in "Byzantin. Zeitschrift", XIII, 73-113; Idem,
"Chrysostomus und Libanius" in Chrysostomika, I, Rome, 1908, 81-142).Chrysostom
as lector and monkIt was a very decisive turning-point in the life of
Chrysostom when he met one day (about 367) the bishop Meletius. The earnest,
mild, and winning character of this man captivated Chrysostom in such a measure
that he soon began to withdraw from classical and profane studies and to devote
himself to an ascetic and religious life. He studied Holy Scripture and
frequented the sermons of Meletius. About three years later he received Holy
Baptism and was ordained lector. But the young cleric, seized by the desire of a
more perfect life, soon afterwards entered one of the ascetic societies near
Antioch, which was under the spiritual direction of Carterius and especially of
the famous Diodorus, later Bishop of Tarsus (see Palladius, "Dialogus", v;
Sozomenus, Church History VIII.2). Prayer, manual labour and the study of Holy
Scripture were his chief occupations, and we may safely suppose that his first
literary works date from this time, for nearly all his earlier writings deal
with ascetic and monastic subjects [cf. below Chrysostom writings: (1)
"Opuscuia"]. Four years later, Chrysostom resolved to live as an anchorite in
one of the caves near Antioch. He remained there two years, but then as his
health was quite ruined by indiscreet watchings and fastings in frost and cold,
he prudently returned to Antioch to regain his health, and resumed his office as
lector in the church.Chrysostom as deacon and priest at AntiochAs the
sources of the life of Chrysostom give an incomplete chronology, we can but
approximately determine the dates for this Antiochene period. Very probably in
the beginning of 381 Meletius made him deacon, just before his own departure to
Constantinople, where he died as president of the Second Ecumenical Council. The
successor of Meletius was Flavian (concerning whose succession see F. Cavallera,
"Le Schime d'Antioche", Paris, 1905). Ties of sympathy and friendship connected
Chrysostom with his new bishop. As deacon he had to assist at the liturgical
functions, to look after the sick and poor, and was probably charged also in
some degree with teaching catechumens. At the same time he continued his
literary work, and we may suppose that he composed his most famous book, "On the
Priesthood", towards the end of this period (c. 386, see Socrates, Church
History VI.3), or at latest in the beginning of his priesthood (c. 387, as Nairn
with good reasons puts it, in his edition of "De Sacerd.", xii-xv). There may be
some doubt if it was occasioned by a real historical fact, viz., that Chrysostom
and his friend Basil were requested to accept bishoprics (c. 372). All the
earliest Greek biographers seem not to have taken it in that sense. In the year
386 Chrysostom was ordained priest by Flavian, and from that dates his real
importance in ecclesiastical history. His chief task during the next twelve
years was that of preaching, which he had to exercise either instead of or with
Bishop Flavian. But no doubt the larger part of the popular religious
instruction and education devolved upon him. The earliest notable occasion which
showed his power of speaking and his great authority was the Lent of 387, when
he delivered his sermons "On the Statues" (P.G., XLVIII, 15, xxx.). The people
of Antioch, excited by the levy of new taxes, had thrown down the statues of
Emperor Theodosius. In the panic and fear of punishment which followed,
Chrysostom delivered a series of twenty or twenty-one (the nineteenth is
probably not authentic) sermons, full of vigour, consolatory, exhortative,
tranquilizing, until Flavian, the bishop, brought back from Constantinople the
emperor's pardon. But the usual preaching of Chrysostom consisted in consecutive
explanations of Holy Scripture. To that custom, unhappily no longer in use, we
owe his famous and magnificent commentaries, which offer us such an
inexhaustible treasure of dogmatic, moral, and historical knowledge of the
transition from the fourth to the fifth century. These years, 386-98, were the
period of the greatest theological productivity of Chrysostom, a period which
alone would have assured him for ever a place among the first Doctors of the
Church. A sign of this may be seen in the fact that in the year 392 St. Jerome
already accorded to the preacher of Antioch a place among his Viri illustres
("De Viris ill.", 129, in P.L., XXIII, 754), referring expressly to the great
and successful activity of Chrysostom as a theological writer. From this same
fact we may infer that during this time his fame had spread far beyond the
limits of Antioch, and that he was well known in the Byzantine Empire,
especially in the capital.St. Chrysostom as bishop of ConstantinopleIn the
ordinary course of things Chrysostom might have become the successor of Flavian
at Antioch. But on 27 September 397, Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, died.
There was a general rivalry in the capital, openly or in secret, for the vacant
see. After some months it was known, to the great disappointment of the
competitors, that Emperor Areadius, at the suggestion of his minister Eutropius,
had sent to the Prefect of Antioch to call John Chrysostom out of the town
without the knowledge of the people, and to send him straight to Constantinople.
In this sudden way Chrysostom was hurried to the capital, and ordained Bishop of
Constantinople on 26 February, 398, in the presence of a great assembly of
bishops, by Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, who had been obliged to
renounce the idea of securing the appointment of Isidore, his own candidate. The
change for Chrysostom was as great as it was unexpected. His new position was
not an easy one, placed as he was in the midst of an upstart metropolis, half
Western, half Oriental, in the neighbourhood of a court in which luxury and
intrigue always played the most prominent parts, and at the head of the clergy
composed of most heterogeneous elements, and even (if not canonically, at least
practically) at the head of the whole Byzantine episcopate. The first act of the
new bishop was to bring about a reconciliation between Flavian and Rome.
Constantinople itself soon began to feel the impulse of a new ecclesiastical
life.The necessity for reform was undeniable. Chrysostom began "sweeping the
stairs from the top" (Palladius, op. cit., v). He called his oeconomus, and
ordered him to reduce the expenses of the episcopal household; he put an end to
the frequent banquets, and lived little less strictly than he had formerly lived
as a priest and monk. With regard to the clergy, Chrysostom had at first to
forbid them to keep in their houses syneisactoe, i.e. women housekeepers who had
vowed virginity. He also proceeded against others who, by avarice or luxury, had
given scandal. He had even to exclude from the ranks of the clergy two deacons,
the one for murder and the other for adultery. Of the monks, too, who were very
numerous even at that time at Constantinople, some had preferred to roam about
aimlessly and without discipline. Chrysostom confined them to their monasteries.
Finally he took care of the ecclesiastical widows. Some of them were living in a
worldly manner: he obliged them either to marry again, or to observe the rules
of decorum demanded by their state. After the clergy, Chrysostom turned his
attention to his flock. As he had done at Antioch, so at Constantinople and with
more reason, he frequently preached against the unreasonable extravagances of
the rich, and especially against the ridiculous finery in the matter of dress
affected by women whose age should have put them beyond such vanities. Some of
them, the widows Marsa, Castricia, Eugraphia, known for such preposterous
tastes, belonged to the court circle. It seems that the upper classes of
Constantinople had not previously been accustomed to such language. Doubtless
some felt the rebuke to be intended for themselves, and the offence given was
the greater in proportion as the rebuke was the more deserved. On the other
hand, the people showed themselves delighted with thesermons of their new
bishop, and frequently applauded him in the church (Socrates, Church History
VI). They never forgot his care for the poor and miserable, and that in his
first year he had built a great hospital with the money he had saved in his
household. But Chrysostom had also very intimate friends among the rich and
noble classes. The most famous of these was Olympias, widow and deaconess, a
relation of Emperor Theodosius, while in the Court itself there was Brison,
first usher of Eudoxia, who assisted Chrysostom in instructing his choirs, and
always maintained a true friendship for him. The empress herself was at first
most friendly towards the new bishop. She followed the religious processions,
attended his sermons, and presented silver candlesticks for the use of the
churches (Socrates, op. cit., VI, 8; Sozomenus, op. cit., VIII,
8).Unfortunately, the feelings of amity did not last. At first Eutropius,
the former slave, now minister and consul, abused his influence. He deprived
some wealthy persons of their property, and prosecuted others whom he suspected
of being adversaries of rivals. More than once Chrysostom went himself to the
minister (see "Oratio ad Eutropium" in P.G., Chrys. Op., III, 392) to
remonstrate with him, and to warn him of the results of his own acts, but
without success. Then the above-named ladies, who immediately surrounded the
empress, probably did not hide their resentment against the strict bishop.
Finally, the empress herself committed an injustice in depriving a widow of her
vineyard (Marcus Diac., "Vita Porphyrii", V, no. 37, in P.G., LXV, 1229).
Chrysostom interceded for the latter. But Eudoxia showed herself offended.
Henceforth there was a certain coolness between the imperial Court and the
episcopal palace, which, growing little by little, led to a catastrophe. It is
impossible to ascertain exactly at what period this alienation first began; very
probably itdated from the beginning of the year 401. But before this state of
things became known to the public there happened events of the highest political
importance, and Chrysostom, without seeking it, was implicated in them. These
were the fall of Eutropius and the revolt of Gainas.In January, 399,
Eutropius, for a reason not exactly known, fell into disgrace. Knowing the
feelings of the people and of his personal enemies, he fled to the church. As he
had himself attempted to abolish the immunity of the ecclesiastical asylums not
long before, the people seemed little disposed to spare him. But Chrysostom
interfered, delivering his famous sermon on Eutropius, and the fallen minister
was saved for the moment. As, however, he tried to escape during the night, he
was seized, exiled, and some time later put to death. Immediately another more
exciting and more dangerous event followed. Gainas, one of the imperial
generals, had been sent out to subdueTribigild, who had revolted. In the summer
of 399 Gainas united openly with Tribigild, and, to restore peace, Arcadius had
to submit to the most humiliating conditions. Gainas was named
commander-in-chief of the imperial army, and even had Aurelian and Saturninus,
two men of the highest rank at Constantinople, delivered over to him. It seems
that Chrysostom accepted a mission to Gainas, and that, owing to his
intervention, Aurelian and Saturninus were spared by Gainas, and even set at
liberty. Soon afterwards, Gainas, who was an Arian Goth, demanded one of the
Catholic churches at Constantinople for himself and his soldiers. Again
Chrysostom made so energetic an opposition that Gainas yielded. Meanwhile the
people of Constantinople had become excited, and in one night several thousand
Goths were slain. Gainas however escaped, was defeated, and slain by the Huns.
Such was the end within a few years of three consuls of the Byzantine Empire.
There is no doubt that Chrysostom's authority had been greatly strengthened by
the magnanimity and firmness of character he had shown during all these
troubles. It may have been this that augmented the jealousy of those who now
governed the empire -- a clique of courtiers, with the empress at their head.
These were now joined by new allies issuing from the ecclesiastical ranks and
including some provincial bishops -- Severian of Gabala, Antiochus of Ptolemais,
and, for some time, Acacius of Beroea -- who preferred the attractions of the
capital to residence in their own cities (Socrates, op. cit., VI, 11; Sozomenus,
op. cit., VIII, 10). The most intriguing among them was Severian, who flattered
himself that he was the rival of Chrysostom in eloquence. But so far nothing had
transpired in public. A great change occurred during the absence of Chrysostom
for several months from Constantinople. This absence was necessitated by an
ecclesiastical affair in Asia Minor, in which he was involved. Following the
express invitation of several bishops, Chrysostom, in the first months of 401,
had come to Ephesus, where he appointed a new archbishop, and with the consent
of the assembled bishops deposed six bishops for simony. After having passed the
same sentence on Bishop Gerontius of Nicomedia, he returned to
Constantinople.Meanwhile disagreeable things had happened there. Bishop
Severian, to whom Chrysostom seems to have entrusted the performance of some
ecclesiastical functions, had entered into open enmity with Serapion, the
archdeacon and oeconomus of the cathedral and the episcopal palace. Whatever the
real reason may have been, Chrysostom, found the case so serious that he invited
Severian to return to his own see. It was solely owing to the personal
interference of Eudoxia, whose confidence Serapion possessed, that he was
allowed to come back from Chalcedon, whither he had retired. The reconciliation
which followed was, at least on the part of Severian, not a sincere one, and the
public scandal had excited much ill-feeling. The effects soon became visible.
When in the spring of 402, Bishop Porphyrius of Gaza (see Marcus Diac., "Vita
Porphyrii", V, ed. Nuth, Bonn, 1897, pp. 11-19) went to the Court at
Constantinople to obtain a favour for his diocese, Chrysostom answered that he
could do nothing for him, since he was himself in disgrace with the empress.
Nevertheless, the party of malcontents were not really dangerous, unless they
could find some prominent and unscrupulous leader. Such a person presented
himself sooner than might have been expected. It was the well-known Theophilus,
Patriarch of Alexandria. He appeared under rather curious circumstances, which
in no way foreshadowed the final result. Theophilus, toward the end of the year
402, was summoned by the emperor to Constantinople to apologize before a synod,
over which Chrysostom should preside, for several charges, which were brought
against him by certain Egyptian monks, especially by the so-called four "tall
brothers". The patriarch, their former friend, had suddenly turned against them,
and had them persecuted as Origenists (Palladius, "Dialogus", xvi; Socrates, op.
cit., VI, 7; Sozomenus, op. cit., VIII, 12).However, Theophilus was not
easily frightened. He had always agents and friends at Constantinople, and knew
the state of things and the feelings at the court. He now resolved to take
advantage of them. He wrote at once to St. Epiphanius at Cyprus, requesting him
to go to Constantinople and prevail upon Chrysostom at to condemn the
Origenists. Epiphanius went. But when he found that Theophilus was merely using
him for his own purposes, he left the capital, dying on his return in 403. At
this time Chrysostom delivered a sermon against the vain luxury of women. It was
reported to the empress as though she had been personally alluded to. In this
way the ground was prepared. Theophilus at last appeared at Constantinople in
June, 403, not alone, as he had been commanded, but with twenty-nine of his
suffragan bishops, and, as Palladius (ch. viii) tells us, with a good deal of
money and all sorts of gifts. He took his lodgings in one of the imperial
palaces, and held conferences with all the adversaries of Chrysostom. Then he
retired with his suffragans and seven other bishops to a villa near
Constantinople, called epi dryn (see Ubaldi, "La Synodo ad Quercum", Turin,
1902). A long list of the most ridiculous accusations was drawn up against
Chrysostom (see Photius, "Bibliotheca", 59, in P.G., CIII, 105-113), who,
surrounded by forty-two archbishops and bishops assembled to judge Theophilus in
accordance with the orders of the emperor, was now summoned to present himself
and apologize. Chrysostom naturally refused to recognize the legality of a synod
in which his open enemies were judges. After the third summons Chrysostom, with
the consent of the emperor, was declared to be deposed. In order to avoid
useless bloodshed, he surrendered himself on the third day to the soldiers who
awaited him. But the threats of the excited people, and a sudden accident in the
imperial palace, frightened the empress (Palladius, "Dialogus", ix). She feared
some punishment from heaven for Chrysostom's exile, and immediately ordered his
recall. After some hesitation Chrysostom re-entered the capital amid the great
rejoicings of the people. Theophilus and his party saved themselves by flying
from Constantinople. Chrysostom's return was in itself a defeat for Eudoxia.
When her alarms had gone, her rancour revived. Two months afterwards a silver
statue of the empress was unveiled in the square just before the cathedral. The
public celebrations which attended this incident, and lasted several days,
became so boisterous that the offices in the church were disturbed. Chrysostom
complained of this to the prefect of the city, who reported to Eudoxia that the
bishop had complained against her statue. This was enough to excite the empress
beyond all bounds. She summoned Theophilus and the other bishops to come back
and to depose Chrysostom again. The prudent patriarch, however, did not wish to
run the same risk a second time. He only wrote to Constantinople that Chrysostom
should be condemned for having re-entered his see in opposition to an article of
the Synod of Antioch held in the year 341 (an Arian synod). The other bishops
had neither the authority nor the courage to give a formal judgment. All they
could do was to urge the emperor to sign a new decree of exile. A double attempt
on Chrysostom's life failed. On Easter Eve, 404, when all the catechumens were
to receive baptism, the adversaries of the bishop, with imperial soldiers,
invaded the baptistery and dispersed the whole congregation. At last Arcadius
signed the decree, and on 24 June, 404, the soldiers conducted Chrysostom a
second time into exile.Exile and deathThey had scarcely left Constantinople
when a huge conflagration destroyed the cathedral, the senate-house, and other
buildings. The followers of the exiled bishop were accused of the crime and
prosecuted. In haste Arsacius, an old man, was appointed successor of
Chrysostom, but was soon succeeded by the cunning Atticus. Whoever refused to
enter into communion with them was punished by confiscation of property and
exile. Chrysostom himself was conducted to Cucusus, a secluded and rugged place
on the east frontier of Armenia, continually exposed to the invasions of the
Isaurians. In the following year he had even to fly for some time to the castle
of Arabissus to protect himself from these barbarians. Meanwhile he always
maintained a correspondence with his friends and never gave up thehope of
return. When the circumstances of his deposition were known in the West, the
pope and the Italian bishops declared themselves in his favour. Emperor Honorius
and Pope Innocent I endeavoured to summon a new synod, but their legates were
imprisoned and then sent home. The pope broke off all communion with the
Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch (where an enemy of Chrysostom had succeeded
Flavian), and Constantinople, until (after the death of Chrysostom) they
consented to admit his name into the diptychs of the Church. Finally all hopes
for the exiled bishop had vanished. Apparently he was living too long for his
adversaries. In the summer, 407, the order was given to carry him to Pithyus, a
place at the extreme boundary of the empire, near the Caucasus. One of the two
soldiers who had to lead himcaused him all possible sufferings. He was forced to
make long marches, was exposed to the rays of the sun, to the rains and the cold
of the nights. His body, already weakened by several severe illnesses, finally
broke down. On 14 September the party were at Comanan in Pontus. In the morning
Chrysostom had asked to rest there on the account of his state of health. In
vain; he was forced to continue his march. Very soon he felt so weak that they
had to return toComana. Some hours later Chrysostom died. His last words were:
Doxa to theo panton eneken (Glory be to God for all things) (Palladius, xi, 38).
He was buried at Comana. On 27 January, 438, his body was translated to
Constantinople with great pomp, and entombed in the church of the Apostles where
Eudoxia had been buried in the year 404 (see Socrates, VII, 45; Constantine
Prophyrogen., "Cæremoniale Aul Byz.", II, 92, in P.G., CXII, 1204 B) http://www.ewtn.com/saintsHoly/saints/J/stjohnchrysostom.asp